Allie Simpson, Marshall Henrie, ChaoRong Wu, Benjamin Brintz, Stephen Christiansen, Michael S Jensen, Brian Stagg, Judith Warner
{"title":"Institutional comparison of methods of intraoperative cataract surgery complication reporting.","authors":"Allie Simpson, Marshall Henrie, ChaoRong Wu, Benjamin Brintz, Stephen Christiansen, Michael S Jensen, Brian Stagg, Judith Warner","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluated the effectiveness of surgeon self-reporting and anterior vitrector equipment billing in identifying intraoperative posterior capsular tears (PCT) with vitreous loss during cataract surgery. A total of 19,258 cataract surgeries performed over six years at the John A. Moran Eye Center were analyzed, with 343 potential complications identified through billing or self-reporting, and 193 confirmed PCT cases based on chart review. Billing data captured 83.9% of PCTs but lacked specificity, including many non-PCT uses of anterior vitrectomy. Surgeon self-reporting was highly specific, with 100% accuracy according to operative reports, but detected only 58.5% of total PCT cases. The findings highlight the strengths and limitations of both methods-billing is sensitive but overinclusive, while self-reporting is accurate but underutilized. Neither method alone was sufficient to identify all complications, emphasizing the need for a standardized, comprehensive approach to intraoperative complication monitoring to enhance patient safety and quality assurance in ophthalmic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001769","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of surgeon self-reporting and anterior vitrector equipment billing in identifying intraoperative posterior capsular tears (PCT) with vitreous loss during cataract surgery. A total of 19,258 cataract surgeries performed over six years at the John A. Moran Eye Center were analyzed, with 343 potential complications identified through billing or self-reporting, and 193 confirmed PCT cases based on chart review. Billing data captured 83.9% of PCTs but lacked specificity, including many non-PCT uses of anterior vitrectomy. Surgeon self-reporting was highly specific, with 100% accuracy according to operative reports, but detected only 58.5% of total PCT cases. The findings highlight the strengths and limitations of both methods-billing is sensitive but overinclusive, while self-reporting is accurate but underutilized. Neither method alone was sufficient to identify all complications, emphasizing the need for a standardized, comprehensive approach to intraoperative complication monitoring to enhance patient safety and quality assurance in ophthalmic surgery.
本研究评估了外科医生自我报告和前玻璃体设备清单在识别白内障手术中玻璃体丢失的术中后囊膜撕裂(PCT)的有效性。研究人员分析了John A. Moran眼科中心六年来进行的19258例白内障手术,其中343例通过账单或自我报告发现了潜在并发症,193例根据图表审查确认了PCT病例。计费数据捕获了83.9%的pct,但缺乏特异性,包括许多非pct前路玻璃体切除术。外科医生自我报告具有高度特异性,根据手术报告准确率为100%,但仅检出58.5%的PCT病例。研究结果突出了这两种方法的优点和局限性——账单敏感但过于包容,而自我报告准确但未得到充分利用。单独使用这两种方法都不足以识别所有并发症,强调需要一种标准化、全面的方法来监测术中并发症,以提高眼科手术患者的安全性和质量保证。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (JCRS), a preeminent peer-reviewed monthly ophthalmology publication, is the official journal of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS).
JCRS publishes high quality articles on all aspects of anterior segment surgery. In addition to original clinical studies, the journal features a consultation section, practical techniques, important cases, and reviews as well as basic science articles.